EPTany chance to see some kind of 6m map tournament ?
Breadth of Gameplay in SC2 - Page 56
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NEW IN-GAME CHANNEL: FRB | ||
|
PredY
Czech Republic1731 Posts
any chance to see some kind of 6m map tournament ? | ||
|
FoxyMayhem
624 Posts
Key: Current Focus, Incomplete, Complete, Showmatch a: Map Pool - Devolution, ________, ________ b: Propaganda/Introduction to the concept Video c: Potential Casters - OldManSenex, Day[9], Total Biscuit, EG.DeMuslim d: Potential Players - WhiteRa, Grubby, TLO, NonY, Destiny e: Determine Gas/Min ratios f: Prize Pool (60/40 split?) For the propoganda video, I was thinking starting with a black screen where we overhear excerpts from some of the casts OldManSenex has done, like the part "we're seeing units we normally don't see...the hydralisk now seems to have a roll...battles are spread out...skrimished everywhere". Music builds in the background while the relevant excerpts are playing. Then the intensity music cuts, and we have jolly wistling as several battles that are unique to 6m are shown. Then someone reading (maybe me, I have a good voice for this stuff, and it's good to get as many different voices in this as we can) excerpts from Barrin's post while graphs and gameplay are displayed. Music shifts to epic. "...meaning in current Starcraft 2, it often turns into a dull race to max from 3 base...we want to see people expanding, we want to see the lines of war, we want to see less deathball versus deathball plainess, but we won't so long as all it takes is three bases to max, and expansions beyond that point are unreasonably hard...this is about Starcraft 2 as a spectator sport, not as just a game. When each unit means more, matters more, micro becomes a greater focus, micro that is going to be more entertaining, more visceral for the viewer...it really is a simple fix, and we the community can do it. 6 minerals per base. Change the rate of income, and you fix so many of the weaknesses of Starcraft 2...We need to do it now, and push for it to be standard in Heart of the Swarm...The mapmaking community is behind it, more and more pro players who see the concept are behind it...are you? We have a little less than a year, by best guesses, to make starcraft 2 players want this. It may very well be vital to our future. Are you behind it?" Then a 6M logo that says "join us". "Play the 6m maps, tell Blizzard with your words and your play time, that this is the future starcraft we want." Those excerpts/tl;drs from Barrin's post may not be the best ones, so if someone has a point they think needs to be in there, that would be great. This video serves as an easy introduction to the concept that people can pass to non TL-ers or lazy TL-ers. It also serves to hype movement, and engage the viewer. And, if it's decently well done, serves to legitimize our movement. If you have more player or caster suggestions, or would prefer to see one of those listed, put them down! | ||
|
Mongolbonjwa
Finland376 Posts
And pros already float minerals while microing their units. Humans just cannot do two things at the same time, its all about priorities. | ||
|
drgoats
United States310 Posts
Then you can take the top guys from each group and run a bracket. It might be a little more difficult to get the people together but it will provide better data to draw off of. | ||
|
FoxyMayhem
624 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I also think it's a bit messed up that the chat channel is 7m but everyone plays 6m. | ||
|
drgoats
United States310 Posts
On March 22 2012 03:47 FoxyMayhem wrote: Were not testing for balance yet, we're making the idea marketable to the viewers. And to do that, we need something to show them; it's much easier to sell 2 players and 2 casters on a two hour time investment, than 6 players and 2 casters on a a 5 hour time investment. A tournament will come, but it is not the first step. I actually think that this is the wrong way to do it. I believe it should be the testing phase before we involve the big names. There are enough higher ranked people involved now that I am sure that something can be arranged. After the games are played people can reflect on what they saw and if this project should continue. I played the map too and it felt great, but how many people are actually trying to abuse the idea. Theoretically a 4-gate should be impossible, but what if it isn't? Things like that should be checked out. Once this has all been thoroughly tested we can then move onto the showmatch to promote the idea. Lastly, and this might just be me, but I think you might want to change the wording on your Master Plan post. The caster/player list should be a suggested list and not a potential list. Potential infers that the players/casters were made aware of the plan and that they were thinking about it. However, until there are discussions I think its better to leave it as a suggested list. | ||
|
drgoats
United States310 Posts
On March 22 2012 03:55 Gfire wrote: I don't think the amount of data will matter, because the players won't have been playing long enough for any real conclusions to be made in terms of balance. Marketing and popularizing the idea is more important right now. I also think it's a bit messed up that the chat channel is 7m but everyone plays 6m. It looks like I might be in the minority of this and to all honesty, it probably doesn't matter. I just know that I would be willing to put some money into a tournament but only after I have seen a little more from the maps. I would hate to invest in watching two pros play a map that in a week we realize is not good after we finally put it through some testing. I know that balance doesn't matter because the game can be fixed later after the maps are adopted, but there is still the possibility that changing the amount of mineral patches will just break the game beyond a balance fix. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
thehighnotes
Netherlands7 Posts
I really hope Blizzard is paying attention what is happening here, because it feels like something is taking off that alot of players have been missing from Sc2, a sense of dynamic to games that wasn't found in Sc2, and till Barrin, no-one has managed to lay the finger on it. I'm increddibly curious to see where this is going. / my 2 cents of support :D | ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
On March 21 2012 17:37 Surili wrote: After watching that Cecil game, i think more emphasis has to be put on splitting up units for protoss vs zerg, because in the mid game, i feel like with higher spending on middle sized groups of stalkers and then having a core army of immortal/sentry on defence is going to be many times stronger on a map with that many ridges and of that size. I really feel like especially when the broods came out, Cecil had a large window where he could have been attacking the other side of the map, before the broods properly went on offence, hopefully persuading the zerg to pull back a little. Also, warp prisms are gonna be SO IMPORTANT in this style. I think hero style pvz from 3 months ago will be much stronger on maps with this many expansions and such, as it will somewhat nullify the zerg advantage of extra bases (ie larvae), as more bases means more drones being forced to be used as static defense. Hopefully cecil will come here and tell us his thoughts. PS: At senex, i don't know about his opponent, but cecil is actually a quite well known, high level player, and is well respected on the strategy forums here, having written many of the best protoss matchup guides. I felt like I just didn't know how to play. There were a few key moments in the first few engagements where I felt that I needed to punish a hatchery after winning an engagement, but would prefer to just expand and keep my army near to ensure the expansion goes up. When you play on this map as Protoss in PvZ you feel really short on minerals, so it was very awkward taking a fast third and trying to get the fourth as fast as I could, I felt like I just didn't know how to really balance that sort of window where I win an engagement, need to expand, and punish a hatchery at once. I'm sure splitting the Stalkers from my slower Sentry/Immortal would work, where I send the slow units to my new fourth and then harass the outer-Zerg bases while he's constructing more Roaches. Just need more games to figure out what to do and when, as I always feel so short on minerals trying to get down Gateways, pylons, cannons, Nexuses, and Stalkers. I also never felt like I could afford Colossus, as they just take too many minerals. HT are really mineral cheap, and so they were much easier to come out with. Edit: My opponent is a friend of mine that I go to school with, he was on a smurf and was actually very high on the NA ladder a little while go playing people like Idra and such. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
Iamyournoob
Germany595 Posts
The reason, why I think so, are "Zerg" and "Sentries". As some pointed out 6m might potentially favor zerg. Furthermore I can imagine very cost-efficient units to become even stronger in a game with resource scarcity. And when I think of cost-effectiveness I think of Roaches and I think of Protoss, whose units are not that cost-efficient... So how does Protoss beat the more cost-effective units? The answer is sentries. And this is where "more gas relative to minerals" comes into play. It might give Protoss the opportunity to go very sentry-heavy and with a proper map layout use them to defend and secure expansions. I also believe that DTs, HTs and Archons will play an even huger role with 6m2g. If gas is now relatively cheap it might also promote Raven play a bit more. Anyways, I am looking forward to see how this relative increase in gas income works out. Thanks, Barrin, for putting so much effort into this whole topic. This might get me back to playing SC2 after all  | ||
|
drgoats
United States310 Posts
| ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
| ||
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
With the map selection, Devolution is the obvious first choice, after which I think there are a few good options. One that would be great from an analysis standpoint but less good from an entertainment standpoint would be to have the players play a BO whatever showmatch where Devolution is the only map used. That would let both of them start learning and adapting to the new style and particular traits of the map, and I think the last 2-3 games in the series would be downright amazing. However, seeing the same map over and over could start to get stale. Another would be to let the players pick the maps. We start the first game on Devolution, after which the loser picks from all the available 6m1hyg maps. That would let the players choose maps that compliment their playstyles and also take advantage of their large amounts of game knowledge. A professional player might see strategic possibilities on, say, 6m1hyg Entombed Valley that are not at all obvious to people with less experience. Finally, it would provide a large map selection and let people see a lot of the map pool for 6m1hyg games. I personally think this is the best option, as it plays to the benefits of having progamers involved in the showmatch and gives great entertainment and analysis possibilities. The last option I can see would be to just choose 7 or however many different maps to ensure that a very broad spectrum of maps is shown to the community. While this would be a lot of fun to watch, I'm worried that by just arbitrarily picking maps without pro player input we'd run the risk of accidentally choosing a map with a horrible, glaring imbalance that would make the games less fun and interesting. It might turn out, for example, that Entombed Valley is absolutely impossible for a Protoss player to take a safe 4th base, so to have it in our showmatch would be a waste of player and viewer time. A theory/promotional video could be a really good thing to try to get the idea of a showmatch out there. @Barrin, would you be interested in maybe doing an interview? Being able to talk through your points and explain your ideas in a conversation rather than an article might help get a lot more people interested. We could even start a thread and gather questions from the community to provide insights into your design philosophy and process. If you want to talk more about it just shoot me an PM and we can try to set it up. | ||
|
VictorJones
United States235 Posts
I am not an authority on balance (in fact, it would seem that no one on earth is based on the replies people talking about balance will recieve) but I do definitely think that this proof of concept is well worth discovering how certain matchups can be improved by blizzard. I also think that this gameplay type is what will ultimately ensure that a steady game-wide balance is reached. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the implications for publicizing 6m maps are much more than just making the game slower, and if it doesn't work out well, that's actually a very good thing because it will expose problems with the overall design of certain matchups in sc2. This is of course assuming any problems arise  | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
shizaep
Canada2920 Posts
We can only wait and see. And great post man, ; ) It's always interesting to read these highly-technical, analytical ideas. | ||
|
FoxyMayhem
624 Posts
1) Testing cannot begin in earnest until many high level pro players are playing. This is because the metagame, and it's enormous effect on who wins. Which means, we cannot actually sell this transition on balance until we've had a thousand games played by many different pros. This is a huge investment on the part of the pros. The only way to get them to do this is offer money and have a bunch of tournaments, and the only decent business model doing that is to have spectators. Which brings us back to the same issue, which is that the new dynamic is not known to be balanced before we have pros playing on it publicly, except it's only made worse by being a whole tournament instead of a small show match. We cannot sell the transition on balance. 2) We can sell the transition on the very clear improvement in gameplay, and by being swift to respond to clear imbalances. By giving the transition a grass roots feel, people know it's not going to be perfectly balanced and smooth -- in fact, that's part of the appeal. It's wild new territory that we're hunting it, and shooting balance issues as they arise. 3) If a player gets owned in the tournament, it's probably not due to balance issues, it's almost certainly going to be due to metagame and familiarity, and every time they get owned a chorus of voices is going to be telling them what they should have done instead. This actually fuels the drive for people to play the maps: those who want to try the winning strat themselves, and those who think the winning strat could easily be broken by x, y, and z. Even if it is a landslide in favor of one player, the maps popularity will grow. Also, this is why I suggest a 60/40 split on the prize pool. We're paying them to play the maps, with a bit extra for the winner to keep it competitive. This prevents the looser from feeling burned too bad by the experience if they do get rocked by a powerful timing attak. But honestly, I expect the gameplay to be loose and shot from the hip, with that sense of fun the monobattles had, preventing anyone from getting too sore over potential balance issues. 4) Popularity has to come before any deep balancing. Without thousands of players trying to break your map, balancing something this new is mostly theory. By setting player's expectations (this may not be balanced, please break it), the imbalances become a goal for the players. We won't find it without their help, and we can't get their help without visibility. Basically, it all comes down to setting viewer expectation. The 60/40 split keeps things friendly, and if we play up the wild west feel, we've turned our weakness (unsure balance) into a strength. About Tal'Darim, we could try it. It's less base dense than the best 6m maps should be, is the major concerns. That we would want to test beforehand. | ||
| ||
